How are feminists any different than child molesters

The main objection people have to adults’ having sexual contact with girls is that supposedly the “molester” brainwashes them into believing that what they’re doing is okay, and he uses his position of trust to get them to serve his desires. Then when it’s convenient to him, maybe he dumps them.

How is this any different than the behavior of corporate America? They tell girls that being a slut and having a career is in their best interests. (Sluttiness goes along with having a career because women need to delay marriage until they’re done with their education, but they still have sexual desires long before they’re done with school, so they end up sleeping with a lot of different guys.)

It’s the media and educational establishments telling them this, which are two trusted institutions. And they’re filling their heads with this propaganda from a young age. There’s a power imbalance between the schools and the kids who are forced to go to the schools, and between the media establishments (which can freely put out their message) and kids (who are not even allowed to go on YouTube to publish their own videos with open comment sections anymore; plus they’re not able or allowed to earn their own money with which to set up their own websites, and they’re barred by the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act from sharing information by which to set up online accounts in a lot of cases).

Anyway, what ends up happening is, girls suffer a lot of anxiety and depression from being forced or led into situations that go against their natural inclinations to be homemakers and mothers, and they take a lot of anxiety pills and antidepressants. A lot of them end up divorced and lonely, and many of them are childless and have to resort to keeping around a bunch of animals as surrogates, which isn’t as fulfilling.

They experience a lot of stress from not having the leadership of a man who’s going to take care of them; the corporate world makes no guarantees of anything. They can be fired at any time, as we recently saw in the case of Amy Cooper, who not only didn’t have a husband to keep her safe in the park, but also lost her job for being racially insensitive. Homemakers don’t need to worry about that kind of stuff happening to them.

The proliferation of single moms means that a lot of girls are in a situation where they could get pressured into sex by the stepdad. If the kind of scenario depicted in Lolita doesn’t jibe with your vision of what girllove is supposed to be like, then I don’t know why you would support feminism, which tends to create such situations.

Not to mention, women suffer from the fact that having a lot of females in the workplace tends to make the economy less efficient. If, say, the ranks of NASA scientists are clogged up with affirmative action hires instead of the most qualified, or guys like Matt Taylor are getting distracted by scandals like Shirtgate, it tends to detract from the organization’s efficiency and ability to complete its mission. People say that patriarchy would keep women from becoming astronauts, but the reality is that feminism just holds the organization back from scientific advances that would make it easier for women to travel to other planets, even if it is under male supervision.

What’s the alternative? Well, we just need to acknowledge that a feminist social order doesn’t work, and that the kind of egalitarian utopia people had in mind can’t be realized.

It’s like if someone were to ask, “What are we to do about this cruel animal testing involving rabbits?” Sure, we can ban it, and set the rabbits free to go frolic in the woods, but then wolves will eat a lot of them anyway. We could set up some nature preserve that’s free of predators, but then the rabbits would breed to the point that some of them died of starvation or overcrowding. One could manage the population by sterilizing some of them, but is that really ethical, given that they haven’t given informed consent to that.

The bottom line is that some creatures were just meant to be prey animals. So then it’s just a question of, which kind of arrangement is the least harmful to them.

But, it’s not only just that; there’s also the question of, what about us? We are animals too and our rights and well-being are important as well. At the end of the day, you have to come to terms with your role in the food chain, which is to eat the lower animals and otherwise use them for your purposes. I mean, it’s not like they wouldn’t do the same to us if the situation were reversed; we see that when, say, wolves or mountain lions get the upper hand over humans.

And it’s the same way with the sexes. When women get the upper hand over men, they treat them as badly, if not worse, than men would treat women if they were in charge of them. Female teachers, for instance, tend to focus more on helping the girls than the boys. And women try to take every dime they can in divorce proceedings, by any means the law allows.

It’s just nature, red in tooth and claw. What would happen if the wolf ever started to get concerned about the well-being of the rabbit? He’d probably go extinct, and then probably every edible plant would get eaten because there weren’t wolves to control the herbivores. Maybe it would have ripple effects making other creatures go extinct.

And it’s the same way with humans. When there was a hierarchy with men above women, everyone worked fine, or at least, it was optimal and healthy and self-regulating. There was a balance of nature, with every creature fulfilling the place it had evolved for. But, feminism disturbed that balance, and made everyone miserable. And, now we face extinction.

The low fertility rates means that eventually girls will go extinct, so how can a “girllover” support that? Unless the idea is that the most compassionate thing is for them to stop existing, kind of like the attitude that PETA has toward pets that they “rescue” and then euthanize.


Here’s where men’s and women’s interests diverge

walkinginthepark writes:

> My own feeling is that I think women could actually be more tolerant and supportive of change than men rather than hard line against the idea. I say that because while I know of some women who are very much anti-pedophile I also know several who are much more open and understanding. I’ve had women strongly defend friends of theirs who have been convicted for such relationships and argue that it’s normal and natural, guys being guys and falling for pretty young girls.

It really depends on what women regard as their being in their own interests. Let’s say that there’s a hot guy who has a few sex offenses in his record. A woman might be attracted to him and either excuse his past or even be turned on by the fact he was willing to be deviant and rebel against society’s standards. She might be willing to support that he be released from prison and from other restrictions that keep her from having a relationship with him.

That doesn’t mean that she’s going to be okay with men continuing to pursue young girls, or especially having ongoing sexual relationships with young girls. That doesn’t benefit her in any way; it makes men less available to her because they’re chasing after those younger girls instead of focusing on having a relationship with her. So she will support a system that allows her to report him for having relationships with young girls, and break up those relationships so that he’ll focus on her instead.*

This is not really compatible with, say, institutions like child marriage that some pedophiles might want. But we need child marriage in order to placate the concerns of fathers that their young daughters will be simply used for sex and then discarded. If child marriage isn’t an option, then those dads will probably support stiff penalties for men having sex with their young daughters. So it’s hard to reconcile the interests of these different parties.

A patriarchal system based on the authority of husbands over their wives, and the authority of fathers over their daughters (including the authority to transfer ownership of the girl to a suitable husband), will probably have better outcomes for girls than any of the alternatives, but that doesn’t mean older women, who are already invested in a more feminist system, will support it.

These older women are more like obstacles than allies when it comes to accomplishing our goals; they need to be brushed aside or subjugated. One possibility that the Mormons came up with was to simply allow a desirable man to have both senior and junior wives. Some women tolerated such an arrangement if it had the backing of their society, and were able to even defend it by saying that they appreciated the help the younger wife offered in taking care of the kids, etc.

It’s not always going to be possible to fully satisfy all stakeholders, though. I think the way forward is going to be to prioritize the interests and rights of men. That’s the strongest group in society, and the one whose further empowerment is going to directly benefit us the most.


* She’ll also support other restrictions on male sexual freedom, such as an International Megan’s Law that keeps men from moving to the third world to have sex with young girls there. A man’s doing that does not benefit first world women in any way, which is why you don’t see opposing the International Megan’s Law as an item that’s very high on the agenda of predominantly female-controlled organizations like Reform Sex Offender Laws.

We can expect that such organizations will probably also not have much of a problem with, say, surveillance technology such as computer monitoring, ankle monitors, etc. that let the state keep an eye on what men are doing without interfering with their ability to have relationships with older women and provide for their families. The idea is to take away men’s sexual freedom in a way that doesn’t keep women from using them as workhorses and sexual slaves for their own benefit.

Women will focus on issues like registries and residency restrictions that (1) keep men from finding useful employment by which to support the family and (2) otherwise bring stigma and inconvenience on the family. The common thread here is that such reforms have a clear benefit for older women.

In contrast, First Amendment issues like being allowed to trade child porn featuring young girls will not be very prominent on women’s radar screen as anything they want to support (unless they’re a woman who’s into that stuff, but those women tend to get lighter sentences in the courts, if they get prosecuted at all); on the contrary, they won’t like the idea of men looking at those young girls and perhaps comparing older women unfavorably to them.

It also offends most women’s sense of fairness that a man would get sexual pleasure from a woman without having to pay for it (whether by providing for the woman or being a hot guy who gives her an orgasm); they view it as a female performer’s prerogative to get paid an amount of money commensurate to the fact that a child porn video is getting viewed and enjoyed by millions. If the girl in the video potentially will suffer shame for being a slut, then she will feel all the more entitled to restitution. So, we ended up with these “victims” pushing for legislation to require these CP offenders to pay up.

If you look at even the writings of a libertarian like Mary Ruwart, you’ll notice, her arguments for legalizing child porn are based on the idea that it will help performers get treated fairly (presumably including being paid for their work). But, if we were to implement a market for child porn that’s similar to the market for adult porn, it would probably have all the problems you see with the adult porn industry, including that a lot of the porn stars look pretty damaged, because that slutty lifestyle takes its toll.

In contrast, in a child porn series like the Vicky series, the girl looks healthier and happier, because it’s her dad she’s involved with and they have a loving relationship. She hasn’t been damaged and worn out by relationships with other men, and she still has a youthful glow. The idea of men enjoying watching that kind of porn really triggers a lot of older women with slutty pasts, because they know a girl like Kylie offers something that they can’t.

Another thing about women, btw

Is that a lot of times, they’ll adopt or express sympathy for whatever ideology or sentiment you have, if they’re interested in getting with you.

So for example, if you talk about being pro-pedo, she may say that she’s pro-pedo too. Or at least she may avoid picking a fight with you about it.

This is while she’s trying to attract you into a relationship. She may figure, once she gets you to fall in love with her, or marry her, or make kids with her, or otherwise commit to her, that she can then reveal her true self more, and assert her will more, and you’ll be more likely to accept it because you’re in too deep by that point to back out.

Also, a lot of times, women are fine with going along with a man’s ideas as long as they’re abstract and theoretical, and don’t yet affect them directly in the real world. This gets back to my previous point, about how they try to lure you into a relationship by seeming congenial to your pedophilic viewpoints, plans, hopes, dreams, etc. Girls may figure, “There’s not a lot of harm in letting him, for the time being, express some political rhetoric, or fantasize about hypothetical sex with young girls. I’ll tolerate it for now, and if it’s a problem later, I’ll deal with it then.”

A lot of times, too, they’ll tell themselves, “Well, maybe he’s not all that serious about this stuff.” That goes hand-in-hand with their idea that maybe they can get you to change once they get you locked down.

If a girl seems to be agreeing with your pro-pedo stances, you may want to ask yourself, “What’s her agenda; why is she agreeing with me about this? Has she really done her own independent thinking about this, or is she just being submissive to my wishes because she likes me and it’s in her interests to be that way right now?”

Classic female mating strategy is to find out what you like and try to cater to it, or get your hopes up that she’ll cater to it, during the courtship period. She hopes that you’ll change, and you hope that she’ll never change, and you’ll both be disappointed.

If women weren’t so deceptive, or if men weren’t so gullible, it might be harder for the sexes to get together and mate, especially in a world like ours where women have so much freedom to do what they want (and thus it can be hard for you to impose your will upon them if they decide to betray you).